Home

What idea of Dawkins is ‘increasing discredited’?? Surely the author doesn’t mean evolution?? Are there still young-earth creationists in New Zealand??? One of Dawkins’ major contributions is his continued voice of reason in the face of religious hysteria. I am particularly reminded of his argument on the BBC debate show, where he pressed an Imam from Birmingham on the formal, technical punishment for apostasy in Islam – yes, death, the Imam conceded. Case closed, surely? Dawkins has the status to cast a beautiful light on the ugly realities of all the Abrahamic religions, and he will be remembered as a stalwart.

But yes, a classic ad hominem attack really adds to the case against evolutionary biology, thanks for pointing this out.

Tom, if you can’t even be bothered to read the whole article, why should I bother to write a reply?

I did read the whole article. That is my response. I personally find Dawkins pretty uncharismatic. But I’m not surprised, having watched him pretty closely in the public sphere, that he’s reached the point where he is too exasperated to continue the debate with people of irrational faith. If you have read his new book, you will know he has turned his attentions back to the joy of science, which is evidence in itself of his wider point on religion.

To say Dawkins ‘never contributed much to science,’ which is the point you have chosen to highlight, is to completely miss the point – Dawkins has had a massive role in presenting science in juxtaposition with religion. He has popularised evolutionary biology – that’s something of an important contribution, and not just in the argument against religion.

But hey, great point you make there…er…yep.

It must be wonderful living in La-La Land, Tom. A place where Dawkins really is too busy to debate one of the leading Christian thinkers in the world, a man widely regarded by philosophers of all convictions, atheist and theist alike. Strange that atheists who are actually famous for their ability to think, rather than string together vitriolic rhetoric, don’t regard faith as irrational. But I guess you’d know better.

So tell me, what exactly do you understand Christian faith to be, and in what sense is it irrational? Is it means-end irrational? Proper function irrational? I’m dying to know.

Well they say patience is a virtue but I’ve run out of time to spoon feed Bnonn. Nowhere did I suggest Dawkins was too busy, and any suggestion from the man himself is not to say he is literally ‘too busy,’ but rather, as I indicated – that he’s reached the point where he is too exasperated to continue the debate with people of irrational faith.

Well I concede… I suppose in many instances, faith is entirely rational. I think for a Muslim boy in Gaza, for example, faith is a rationalisation of his surroundings. I would find it hard to criticize that form of faith, as much as I might disagree with the product. But faith in the free, independent, educated, science-based reality we probably both exist in is, yes, irrational. No fancy names required – if you pick up the bible, read it cover to cover, compare it to other holy texts and proclaim Jesus as the son of God and the Bible the Word of God as a matter of fact, then yes, you are irrational. La historia me absolverá. But that gives me little comfort somehow. I might add that the side arguing for a truth without sound evidence holds the burden of proof – and neither you nor any other Christian I have met has ever offloaded that burden with any particular skill.

As for ‘Christian faith’ – I’ve never met any two Christians that have the same understanding of ‘Christian faith.’ What does God look like? Fundamental question. Can’t get the same answer. What does hell consist of? No unity in the response.

I’m always a bit surprised when Christians get their backs up in defense though. If you really are so sure of your faith, and you really are a Christian, and God really is love, then why would you be so snarky and unpleasant to me as I approach eternal damnation, rather than persuade me of my ignorance? Do you think your approach is an effective form of evangelism? Or is this a little victory march for you? Rhetorical questions, of course, I don’t care either way – but you sound like someone who has taken a wrong turn and could do with some reflection. Good luck.

Tom, when you find some arguments to underwrite your naked assertions about irrationality and burden of proof, feel free to return and let us know. It seems obvious you don’t even understand what rationality is in any rigorous sense.

As regards faith, I wasn’t referring to the complex of doctrines which comprise Christianity. I was referring to faith itself. What constitutes faith, in your view? If you don’t even know what the Bible itself says about faith, then how can you comment on whether it is irrational or not?

Why should I be snarky and unpleasant to you? Has the pot met the kettle? Your faux condescension is patently hollow. “Religious hysteria” is the first line which jumps out at me from your first comment on this thread. I’ve been on this merry-go-round before. This site isn’t a soapbox for atheist cheerleaders; it is a place for genuine dialog between people interested in the truth.

Although you’re unable to address any of my points, I will address yours. What do I think faith is? At a basic level – on the basis that a Christian cannot prove, in the empirical sense, the existence of God, they use faith to fill the gap. So something like, I have faith in God, although there is no significant evidence that he exists. I have faith that the bible is the word of God, although I have never actually met God, or the people who wrote the bible, or Jesus. That’s not meant to be snide that’s just reality, right? I understand faith has layers of meaning (faith that God has a plan rather than in his existence, for example). I know in Mark 5 a woman is cured of her illness because ‘her faith made her well’ according to Jesus. That’s one biblical demonstration of faith. That’s one thing the bible offers to Christians – the possibility that faith and submission to Jesus can have tangible impacts on their life. I have a feeling you will have an academic disagreement to my definition but I think if you do you will be missing my broader point.

Which is one thing that has always confused me. In terms of our interaction with God, we clearly anticipate that he can intervene and affect our lives. In this sense, God is either omnipotent and in control of everything, omnipotent but selective in his interference, or he is impotent and has no control over anything. From there, if your Dad is sick and you pray for God to intervene, you’re obviously expecting him to do so. And we’re instantly struck with a massive moral dilemma. If God can cure people of cancer, why doesn’t he cure all people of cancer? What kind of moral God has power of events and permits horrific, wicked things to happen? And if on the other hand he is not omnipotent but impotent, then what is the purpose of prayers for intervention in the first place? I genuinely have not had a coherent answer to that question, ever, from anyone. The only conclusion I ever find is that IF God does exist, never mind the fact that there’s no evidence that he does in the first place, then in my mind God is terribly immoral and I would rather spend eternity on the other side of the fence.

Which brings me round to the ORIGINAL point I made posting here. You’ve highlighted a passage suggesting that the science on which Dawkins’ has built his reputation is ‘increasingly discredited.’ And I asked you, although you did not respond – are you saying, or agreeing, that evolution, as a theory, has been discredited???? If so, on what possible basis??

Tom, your definition of faith could not be further off base. But it reveals a lot about your assumptions re proof and evidence. So let me talk about that first, because I think that will be more productive.

You talk about faith in God being something Christians cannot prove. Well, I’ll get to that in a minute, but accepting this definition of faith for now, let me ask you: do you have any proof that I exist, apart from what I have written? I don’t believe you do. Yet you have “faith” that I exist, and in fact, not only is it rational for you to have this “faith”, but it would be considered irrational if you did not. Similarly, can you prove that an external world exists? Can you prove the law of noncontradiction, or the principles of mathematics? No, you cannot. Yet believing these things is considered entirely rational; disbelieving them is actually insane. These beliefs are called “properly basic”—they are so fundamental to our experience that believing them is entirely rational, regardless of whether they can be proved. (When I say “rational” I mean proper-function rational, or something similar to it. You never did answer my question re in what manner Christian faith is irrational, though.)

Now let me talk about evidence. You say there is no evidence for God’s existence. But that is patently false. I have more evidence for God’s existence than I have evidence for yours! I not only have the witness of the Bible (which in turn is corroborated by its internal coherence, its fulfilled prophecies, etc), but I also have many other reasons to believe, including, but not limited to, the internal experience of God; the moral argument; the cosmological argument; the transcendental argument; and the argument from reason. But there’s no argument I know of to show that the existence of Tom Joad is more likely than not. I don’t have any internal experience of your existence. All I have is what you have written. So on those grounds alone, I am more rational to believe that God exists than I am to believe that you do.

I’m sure when you said “evidence” you meant empirical evidence. But that just shows your bias. Why is empirical evidence the only kind you’re willing to admit? And why should I accept such a profoundly absurd definition—a definition that can’t even support its own weight, since there’s no empirical evidence that the only kind of evidence is empirical evidence?!

Okay, now let me talk about faith. The Bible defines faith as a true and justified belief in God’s favor towards us. It presupposes the existence of God as given, because we are all made with a facility to recognize his existence as obvious; as I said, it is properly basic. (Some of us subvert that facility, to our condemnation.) In other words, the Bible treats faith as knowledge. The Greek word we translate as “faith” is pistis, which was originally the word for forensic evidence in Greek courts. The Bible neither admits nor even entertains the notion that faith is a belief that cannot be proved—on the contrary, it regards faith as a belief which can be proved to the satisfaction of a court. And that is certainly what we find in the New Testament, where people were converted to Christianity left right and center despite persecution, and despite the fact that its claims were so outrageous and so testable (remember, these claims were based on eyewitness accounts), that if they had been false everyone would quickly have known about it, and would certainly not have endured imprisonment, torture and death for them.

As regards your question about God’s omnipotence, surely you can’t know so little about Christianity that you aren’t familiar with its theodicies? God does not cure cancer for everyone for the same reason that he allows evil in general: to reveal himself to the fullest extent, both in wrath and in mercy. Man’s sin is the cause of problems like cancer, and God provides a way of salvation that transcends these problems. It’s odd that you focus on something relatively minor, like cancer, rather than something major like hell!

Back to your original point, I am not saying that evolution, as a theory, has been discredited. And the article isn’t either. It is saying that certain ideas within evolution, that Dawkins originally pioneered, have been discredited. I don’t personally believe in speciation, and I think the evolutionary worldview as a whole is sheer mad poppycock (but what else do you have if you deny God, I guess). But that doesn’t mean I think evolution, as a theory, has been “discredited”.

Ah – this is a lot more interesting. I appreciate the comprehensive response. I think you would be surprised at how many Christians exist that do not have even a basic understanding of the things you’ve outlined here (which incidentally is, to me, further proof against the Christian God, ie – the complete disaggregation of His followers). I’ll give a proper response tonight.

On a side note – I’d like to be in court when a judge rules on the existence of God.

Tom, there’s no doubt that many people who call themselves Christians don’t understand these things. But simply calling oneself something doesn’t make it so. Still, even if many genuine Christians don’t understand the basics of their faith, why is that evidence against God? Why should God not decree such disaggregation? On the face of it, the lack of unity among Christians would seem to emphasize two things to me: the extent of sin, and the extent of God’s grace that he saves us despite our failure to be as unified as we ought. Why could this not be what God intended by the disunity in the first place?

Still waiting hopefully for that proper response, Tom.